judiciary

As we saw the law society nurtures and disciplines its own members, this can be like the mother of a very spoilt child , if the child is a favourite its a case of Now Johnny you go and be a good boy mummy will be very cross if you do that again . or if the child is not liked a step child or a foreign lawyer for example then there will be a crucifixion so that a message is sent to the others and to show that the system is working .

The conflicting roles of the law society are set in statute .. statute is written by lawyers and as with the animal welfare Act, there is concrete evidence that statutes are written and advised on by lawyers .

(The animal welfare act , no 1 bill was written by Barrister Neil Wells to facilitate his own business plan, he advised on this as independent advisor to the select committee without declaring his conflict of interest )

The resulting swiss cheese legislation has sufficient holes for the lawyers to crawl through and evade the intention of the law.

(a)to control and regulate the practice in New Zealand by barristers and by barristers and solicitors of the profession of the law:

(b)to uphold the fundamental obligations imposed on lawyers who provide regulated services in New Zealand:

(c)to monitor and enforce the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of lawyers:

(d)to monitor and enforce, throughout the period specified in any order made under section 390, the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of conveyancers:

(e)to assist and promote, for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand, the reform of the law.

It is my experience that the law society is very poor at holding lawyers accountable to the rule of Law and that is where our entire justice system falls down . Close enough is not good enough , lawyers are officers of the court and as such have higher obligations to truth and honesty than the average Joe Bloggs , and we all know that many lawyers don’t know the definition of truth.

In a recent decision from the law society the society stated that

“The lawyer is an agent for the client in conducting the client’s affairs. The lawyer is obliged to follow the instructions of the client where it is consistent with their professional duties. The lawyer has a duty of absolute loyalty to the client and may not have regard for the interests of third parties except insofar as they are consistent with his or her own instructions and relevant to the protection and promotion of the interests of his or her own client.”

This may be true but this is surely limited to being an officer of the court first this is spelled out in section 4 of the act

the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.

This to me at least makes it clear that the lawyers primary obligations are to the court and he has a duty not to mislead the court or to use the court for an improper purpose .

Time and time again we see that lawyers are not being held accountable to the rule of law and because they know that this particular bit of the rules is purposely overlooked they use it to abuse the use of the court.

In these hard time of lawyers being paid upward of $250 per hour its about winning , no matter how. When a group of people are backing each other up and no one is being held accountable to the rule of law then injustice reigns.

As a result it is our observation that the new Zealand courts have become extremely unsafe .

When a lawyer steps out of line the first step is to make a complaint to the law society .

We made a complaint against a lawyer in April 2016, the quote above came from the decision which was delivered by an anonymous group of people represented with the name and signature of only one barrister who signed the decision on 28 November 2017 .

Standards committees are set up under section 126 of the act , they appear to be are totally anonymous and are in reality not a legal structure which is capable of being sued or suing, but they are regularly represented in court proceedings as if they have every right of a legal or natural person .

Standard committees in effect are nothing more than a trading name given to a group of unidentified persons , at best it is an unincorporated group and the rules in law dictate that they should be treated as naming the individuals as members of the what ever trust or committee.

The decisions of the committees are listed here look at them the majority have the lawyers names anonymised despite the fact that many lawyers who have come to their attention have committed real crimes and have never been held accountable in another court .

There is a good chance that the lawyers on the disciplinary committees are connected to the lawyer under review due to them belonging to a secondary alliance whihc many law firms have formed for example

All in all there is nothing at all transparent about the disciplinary process , it behind closed doors and as seen with the example takes a very long time for a complain to come out the other end 1 year 7 months in the example above .

the decision is delivered with this note

“Decisions of the Standards Committee must remain confidential between the parties unless the Standards Committee directs otherwise. The Standards Committee has made no such direction in relation to this matter.“

But despite the fact that they decide to back their lawyer members up for not complying with the rule of law there is an avenue open to appeal their decision and that is through the LCRO and that is even more fascinating.. to be continued

I have become aware through being sued in our courts for speaking the truth and for exposing serious corruption that our courts are on a par with our casinos.Except that our casinos have more security issues in place to prevent abuse.

We apparently fare no better than the Wild West it appears to be a free for all in our courts with no ENFORCEABLE systems or processes to give those taken to court any protection .

When truth and evidence are not factors we cannot have justice. The justice sector by not providing prosecutions for perjury is failing the people

It appears to me, that the course of justice has been averted. Those in the middle income group who own their own houses are a very good target. Their houses are now worth going after and what better way than to bring a massive financial burden on to them, costs which no one can possibly budget for.

This means that those with means and those who are lawyers themselves can totally abuse the court system for their own advantage and write the costs off as a tax advantage while forcing the other party to hire a lawyer .

If you do not hire a lawyer and defend yourself you become prey to the dirty legal tricks which deny justice and which is apparently allowed in our Legal system .

Court has become a tool of oppression , why use a baseball bat to steal some ones wallet when you can use a lawyer and get their house and anything done through a lawyer is apparently legal .

Truth, evidence and integrity have no place in our courts and it appears that you can bring civil claims based on nothing but hogwash . Once the papers are served it is for your opponent to spend funds on lawyers, money which they cannot recover due to the oppressor cleverly hiding all their assets before they start.
I have experienced instances where the civil jurisdiction is being used to pervert the course of justice.

Police simply won’t act if a matter is before the court and without evidence the civil jurisdiction supported by the total lack of rights to the Universal Declaration of Human rights

Some Lawyers appear to use the court to pervert the cause of justice by using the civil jurisdiction to conceal criminal offending.While it is a crime to beat someone up with a baseball bat it appears to be sanctioned if done with a lawyer and legal tactics.

The fact that immense stress and bullying has health repercussions is not even considered a factor and neither must the person being beaten up show any emotion because that is another black mark against them.

I am a former police prosecutor and through my involvement in the Civil court have found that our bill of rights in New Zealand does not afford the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court to those in the civil jurisdiction this is totally out of step with the Universal declaring of Human rights .

I would By way of OIA request further Documentation and discussion papers which examine
1. Why criminal judgements confidential when all civil judgements are published, are both not equally accountable to the public records act.

2. Why convictions in the criminal jurisdiction are not a matter of public record and accessible to all yet civil matters gets full and permanent publicity

3. Criminals have advantage of the clean slate act yet those in the civil jurisdiction are accountable to the decisions for ever , this appears to be a disparity has this been considered and discussed if not why not

4. What the threshold for perjury is and to what degree that drifting from the truth is acceptable before any one is prosecuted, and who prosecutes when the police are under resourced and overburdened?

5. What consideration the minister of justice has given to the use of the civil jurisdiction to pervert the course of justice in the criminal jurisdiction? – To this end, those engaged in crime tend to have more funds than whistle-blowers. Any one coming across a crime has a choice of becoming an accessory by concealing it or speaking up. When they speak up they find themselves under attack from the “would be” criminal and legal tactics rather than truth and evidence are used to financially cripple them. Law is not affordable to the average person and the costs of being taken to court is crippling it is a tool by which the rich and the corrupt can beat up those who are trying to survive. An hour for a lawyer is a weeks wages for the average New Zealander . Law has got out of hand.

6. If the minister of Justice has no way of delivering justice has the minister considered ways to put justice in place or otherwise renaming the ministry.

Our courts need to give protection to the citizens of this country. To allow the courts to be used in appropriately is an abuse of process which I believe the Minister of Justice should seek to prevent.

I look forward to your response.

I am standing as an Independent for Epsom and will make this an election issue.

Problem : client Neil Wells had had written legislation for his own business plan and then made an application to the minister in a false name and falsely claimed that a trust was making the application when quite clearly no trust existed and no one had signed the application

So time rolls by and in 2006 Mr Wells is caught out by some questions which potentially exposed this as corruption so something had to be done fast , before he was fitted up for an orange jump suit.

So David Neutze to the rescue. Despite the fact that lawyers have a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law (section 4 Lawyers and conveyancers act) David saw a way of contorting facts figures and chronologies

The rule of law is defined by LexisNexis as “The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.”

It turns out that LexisNexis and David Neutze disagree on that interpretation.

David must be right because he has managed to get the support of the court at each court event and has successfully prevented me from placing evidence before the court while he has used nothing but procedures and manipulations of the law to secure victory for his clients Lawyers Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley and JP Graeme Coutts.

He then got the court to act on this claim as though it was the truth , He manipulates proceedings so that high costs are awarded agaisnt the other party , then demands them at 2 weeks notice.

How many people could possibly come up with $18,000 in two weeks ???? could you ????

With my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out for being unable to find $18,000 in two weeks for a claim which was essentially agaisnt a trust and not me , the coast was clear for Neil Wells to tell the court what ever he wanted so that history could be re written. As a result no investigation has ever been conducted into AWINZ by any authority .. Get a court judgement and you can get off any crime.

the Fiction which Neutze changed into fact were

The application made by Neil Wells was suddenly made by an ” oral trust ” and because Neil Wells told the Judge that this application wasn’t the real application he said ” Any correspondencewith MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention, there could not be a formal application at that time .”page 7 line 15

He went on to say ” When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application , that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”

On page 10 he says ” In the formation of any Body Corporate or non Body Corporate there is a series of processes which ultimately create the existence of an organisation, and in the case of the Animal Welfare Institute, the various drafts of the Deed of Trust which were formulated in 1999 led up to the final Deed, but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application untilthen. “

Now this is what the Judge relied upon as being true. You must admit it sounds pretty convincing.. but what if it was not true ?

there was no organization or any person in fact who made the application

Wells had sole control of a Law enforcement authority which fulfilled the functions of his business plan

Maf Never checked to see if an organization existed and did not check to see if those named actually knew what was going on.

Its like saying you have a degree when you fully intend to get one in the future, So if it was bad for John Davies and Mary-Anne Thompson to have false credentials How is it Ok for a law enforcement authority to be a fictional organization? And why have I been persecuted for asking the question .. “Why doesn’t the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand AWINZ exist ???? “

So David Neutze secures the judgment which by law becomes a new version of fact , so I find the evidence that Wells has told Porkies in court _ David Neutze to the rescue and stops me from telling the court that it has been lied to .

Are officers of the court supposed to do that ??? at least Neutze was honest when I got them all by the short and curlies when they liquidated my company on a false affidavit. he knew that that game was up then and did the decent thing.. but he cannot read his documents and say OMG my client has lied to the court and since I am an honest and respectable officer of the court I must right this injustice… No Neutze keeps on covering up and stops evidence from being presented.

I then find new evidence to prove that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were never the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, their relationship was born from the need to create a trust when Maf was alerted to the lack of existence of their law enforcement authority . Now Wyn Hoadley is a former Mayor we could not possibly imply that she had done something improper.. so its much easier to Crucify me.

so the quick easy formula for re writing history is

Hike up the costs on false claims

Make a demand for payment and seek to have the defence struck out when payment cant be made.

withdraw the false claims

Don’t provide any evidence at all simply say the statement of claim is true

then tell the court what ever you like and stop the other side from placing anything before the court which could alert the court to the fact that they have been lied to.

No problem with police they don’t do perjury any way

this is called justice.

NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED AT ALL ! History re written !

Contorting facts # 2

This is not “ Pulling the Wool over the ministers eyes “

I have learned from Davis Neutze that you are not pulling the wool over the minister eyes when you:-

1. Make an application for law enforcement powers to the minister of Agriculture on 22 November 1999 and state that “ A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of trust as the “ animal Welfare institute of New Zealand’ AWINZ when no such deed exists.

3. Tell the minister that “ A copy of the signed deed of trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with section 20(a) of the Deed. .

a. No trust deed is ever forwarded

b. Ministry of commerce does not register deeds the ministry of economic development does and they accept certified copies.

c. Section 20a does not exist in the trust deed which materialises in 2006

The second great manipulation of chronologies was with regards to the plaintiffs in the claim

Get three people together for the first time on 10 May 2006 and without any formal documentation adopted a trading name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand and have them file legal proceedings against a legally incorporated charitable trust ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST then registered as The animal welfare institute of New Zealand and make claims of passing off and breach of fair trade. this trust was a legal person in its own right registers from 27-APR-2006 three weeks before the first meeting of Hoadley Wells and Coutts.

Rather stupidly I presumed that their legal name ( if they had had a deed ) would be Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts as trustees in the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand or otherwise Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts trading as the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. While the incorporated legal entity would be called by its legal name which Is the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand . perhaps we shoudl not let Neutze advise clients on contracts.. they woudl not be worth the paper they are written on if he cant identify who the real persons are and who are trustees.

I also mistakenly believed that the group which existed first and legally had more rights to the name than the second informal group and that if they wished to contest the rights to the name they should have followed the advice of the ministry of economic developments

and at least had some evidence that they were a trust and trading.. how was any one supposed to know???

And

By claiming to be a trust by invisible meand, Hoadley wells and Coutts suddenly morphed into the law endorsement authority

The trustees of the December 2006 trust become a charity and use charitable funds to pay for the legal proceedings classic identity fraud….. Tom is a butcher my brother is Tom he must therefore also be a butcher.

Confused.. yes you should be it makes no sense but the court has been led to believe its all kosher its what officers of the court do .. bet he even goes to church on Sunday.

Neutze Takes Maths and accounts to a new level .. a low level that is

In April 2012 I took a new claim agaisnt Hoadley Wells and Coutts for obtaining a judgment by fraud.

Not only did Neutze manage to get the claim struck out Judgment of Gibson 10.05.13 he also managed to get the Judge to call me Vexatious for attempting to seek justice , al the judge needed was for Neutze to place his victories before him. the mere fact that all the judges have rejected proceedings and all but one appeal was actually heard is beside the point.

That appeal was taken by my solicitor at the time Paddy Finnegan who I had to dismiss due to my marriage failing s due to the stress , My bank accounts wer frozen and justice was denied… in the stress of it all I battled on and I have found lay litigants don’t get a look n. lawyers can tell lies but lay litigants don’t get heard.

CIV 2012-004-696 was action taken against Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts each in their own capacity as individuals .

The accounts on which the indemnity costs were claimed was on accounts made out to AWINZ

AWINZ is the acronym used by the animal welfare institute of New Zealand a charitable trust formed on 5 December 2006. This trust was not and never has been a party to these proceedings.

No other definition for AWINZ is provided and there is no evidence and never has been any evidence that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were ever AWINZ together.

The accounts submitted , see costs application are for a number of proceedings in both the High and District Courts, the accounts are intermingled to such an extent that matters pertaining to one litigation has been billed against another.

As pointed out to his honour Peter McCutcheon (18/5/2012) and Translegal (22/8/2012) for whom items appear on this set of accounts were never involved in the District Court proceedings.

The items under the heading 31/7/12 refer to a set of accounts where not one of the items is Quantified as to value , it is therefore impossible to quantify cost claimed and the only conclusion is that and the sum of $369 is ‘made up” .

The item 29 august which is claimed as $390 states “Attendance on file regarding strike out application;” whereas on the accounts on which this entry is based shows that this billing was for other matters as well yet the entire sum has been charged the indemnity cost application .

The accounts dated 28/9/12 cannot be made to add up to $6232.50 this sum is in excess of $1035 of the total.

There is a further adding mistake although only by $3 when all the sums alleged are added up.

Further the affidavit in support of the strike out which consisted of nothing but judgments which were readily available was charged out at $1805.

The calculations for costs on the basis of the figures given in the attached accounts made out to AWINZ do not add up to the sum claimed . The total which can be established is $12,434 and this sum includes items which did not

The lawyers for the defendants were aware of the fact that matters were charged out incorrectly as this was drawn to their attention through the submissions on costs, they did not choose to seek a correction and are therefore guilty of negligence.

In short If you can understand Maths better than law then you can deduce that their Maths and Law are on a Par. its best seen in this document Cost itemised

as can be seen there is a mere difference of some $4,000 and a lot of unquantifiable items thrown in at that.. would IRD accept such accounting.. don’t think so !!!!!

I must congratulate Mr Neutze he has proved that in New Zealand it is possible To win a court proceedings

1. with people who have no right to make a claim

without producing any evidence at all

He has proved that you can take defamation proceedings and

1. not need to produce one statement allegedly made by the other party

2. Not show who these statements were made to

3. Not show any alleged words in context

4. Not allow the other party to prove the truth of the statements

5. Deny the accused any type of hearing including a formal proof

6. Strike out any action which the accused takes in an attempt to get justice

7. Produce false accounts to the court for indemnity costs and gets them ( $16,000) even though he falsehood is pointed out to the court

Mislead the court and succeed.

The actions of Mr Neutze have been such that I have to question the integrity of the officers of the court and their responsibility to the law society I will once again make a complaint stand by and watch the law society condone this actions.

It should not cost a whistle blower on serious corruption the obscene sum that it has cost me

We don’t play Monopoly with people who cheat so why should we let lawyers cheat in court !n

This must surely be case law on how to win any case in New Zealand a country with proud sporting traditions clean and green but where “justice” keeps it all under wraps.

‘State capture’ obtains when a small number of firms (or such entities as the military) is able to shape the rules of the game to its advantage through massive illicit, and non-transparent provision of private benefits to officials and politicians. Examples of such behaviour include the ability to control legislative votes, to obtain favourable executive decrees and court decisions. A relatively new concept, the main proponents being World Bank researchers, it echoes that of ‘crony capitalism’ and covers cases where high-level corruption is pervasive.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/state-capture#ixzz1E0fTEZHG

By recognizing the dynamics of state capture, we gain a much clearer understanding of the factors underlying the persistence of corruption in many transition countries. Although corruption has usually been seen as a symptom of weak state institutions, our analysis highlights the powerful forces that have a strong interest in fostering and maintaining these weak institutions.

Any reforms to improve the institutional framework, which might undermine these highly concentrated advantages, will be strongly opposed by captor firms that have the political influence to derail such reforms. Consequently, tackling the problem of state capture is a prerequisite for reforms to improve governance and strengthen the legal, judiciary, and regulatory environment. But once the capture economy has become entrenched, how can the country break out of the vicious circle?

How does it relate To New Zealand?

we need only look at the workings of the former Waitakere City Council and its relationship with the Auckland film studios as an example of state capture .

Regulation required if judges can’t be trusted

There is a fundamental flaw in the Guidelines for Judicial Conduct in that they are not binding.

The guidelines, which were kept secret until late last year, were coincidentally publicly released after the repeated badgering of the Crown Law department by judge-busting lawyer Sue Grey.

The purpose of the guidelines, dated August 2005, was to “provide practical guidance” to judges.

“The general principles can readily be accepted as standards all judges in accepting appointment agree to live by and the public of New Zealand is entitled to expect in judicial conduct.”

However, the guide is not intended to be a code, it self-decrees. “It does not identify judicial misconduct. It is advice.”

But, given the judicial rort that surrounds the precarious situation of Supreme Court judge Justice Bill Wilson, the government should start to look at these guidelines as an opportunity to create statutes – laws that actually govern what a judge must reveal before sitting on a case.

Justice Wilson was a fresh-faced Court of Appeal judge when he sat on a case between superfine wool producer Peter Radford against the Wool Board Disestablishment Company (Disco). He was part of a panel that overturned a High Court ruling in favour of Mr Radford.

Queen’s counsel Alan Galbraith was Disco’s lawyer. He was also Justice Wilson’s business partner and friend.

Because of Justice Wilson’s failure to be completely honest about aspects of his personal business dealings, a mockery is being made of the judiciary. If the government finds itself unable, or unwilling, to do anything about it, the least it should do is seriously consider sweeping changes to the rules.

The guidelines actually go on to explain further why they should only be an advisory.

These guidelines are not principally concerned with the sort of misconduct which would justify removal from office. They are concerned with the promotion of higher standards of conduct.

No system of discipline to impose and support a code of conduct for judicial officers exists in New Zealand or comparable jurisdictions for good reason. It would undermine the fundamental principle of judicial independence.

The guidelines claim judicial independence is not protection for judges but for the people of New Zealand.

In the case of Justice Wilson, the disqualification of judges’ guidelines are particularly pertinent.

The judge must be alert to any appearance of bias arising out of connections with litigants, witnesses or their legal advisors. The parties should always be informed by the judge of facts which might reasonably give rise to perception of bias or conflict of interest.

Justice Wilson failed to do this. There was some attempt to point out the nature of the relationship he had with a lawyer who appeared before him, but the true scope of it was only made clear when it was prised out of him by the Supreme Court.

If that wasn’t enough, there’s more.

Judges should disqualify themselves if in a close relationship to litigants, legal advisors or witnesses in the case. It is impossible to be categorical about the relationships which may give rise to concerns about impartiality. Clearly close blood relationships or domestic relationships are disqualifying.

That seems clear. However, it might not have been clear to Justice Wilson – it doesn’t specifically refer to bloodstock.

Justice Wilson is, or was, friends with Alan Galbraith QC, apart from being a business partner. Mr Galbraith is, or was, clearly friends with Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias. These three, along with Dame Sian’s husband Hugh Fletcher, also had shares in racehorses together.

But, wait, there’s more.

Shareholding in litigant companies or companies associated with litigants should be disclosed. They should always lead to disqualification if the shareholding is large or if the value of the shareholding would be affected by the outcome of the litigation. Where the shareholding is small, full disclosure should still be made.

Justice Wilson and Mr Galbraith each held 50% of Rich Hill Ltd. A 50% shareholding is considered substantial. In additions, this was a company that owned land worth millions of dollars. There was also debt which led to the Supreme Court concluding Justice Wilson was financially indebted to Mr Galbraith.

It is impossible to be categorical about relationships which give rise to disqualification but a judge should always disqualify himself or herself whenever a party, lawyer or witness of disputed facts is a close blood relative or domestic partner of the judge or a close relative of the judge or where such person is a close friend or business associate of the judge.

It is purely semantics to argue the fine points of the guidelines because, as they point out, they are simply guidelines and not absolute rules.

The intent of the guidelines is clear. Justice Wilson should have fully disclosed his business relationship with Mr Galbraith even prior to the Court of Appeal case being considered.

If New Zealand can’t rely on a man’s integrity, then the government must regulate. It has no reasonable choice.

Transparency New Zealand is a voluntary organisation . We are not funded in any way other than by Donations
If you support our work and wish to see us continue please support us with your donation. Thank you
account number 01-0258-0045994-00